Jason Victor Serinus who wrote the June "As We See It" column.

Discussed HERE

RG

Yeah, TAS has been taking cheap shots at Stereophile, MF and JA lately. This doesn't reflect very well on Harley, in my opinion. It seems the more TAS degenerates from employing too many mediocre writers, the more lashing out you see in its pages. While Stereophile has become a shadow of its old self in terms of quantity, the quality is still preserved...there's just fewer pages and fewer components being reviewed. TAS, on the other hand, has really hit the skids with brief and useless reviews written by marginally interesting writers.

Quote:
From: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/regsaudioforum/

"Common decency suggests no explicit comment,and no comment shall I make. REG"

It always saddens me when writers for other magazines decide to pick apart something in Stereophile, because the assumption is made that their magazines are beyond reproach. All I will say is that readers should read what is written in _all_ magazines with a certain degree of skepticism.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

For me it is the science that JA brings to the table with "Phile" that makes the difference. It is the same science that goes into the design and build of the gear, to a lesser degree of course, but an important part of 'seeing the whole picture" if that can be done in a review.

Think of all we would be missing if no testing substanciated what the reviewers heard. It is easier just to publish the mfg specs which "Phile" does as well. Often surprises are found in the science.

Regards,

Hi, John,

This is a tough one for me. Bob Harley and I are old friends, although I haven't seen him since the last time HE was in Los Angeles (1998??), and he told me to check out the "A" mods Steve McCormack was doing on his DNA amplifiers. Sure enough, the recommendation was right on. We were roommates for 6 months or so back in 1977 or '78 -- I was finishing my PhD dissertation and he was working on the final stages of his education in electronics. We both sold cheap stereos at a nadir-fi joint in Garbage Grove, California. I followed his rise in the guru business with great interest, of course, and always found his commentary reasonable, sane, unhyped, understated, and accurate. When Fi fell and he moved to TAS, I still found his commentary unvarnished and level headed, and backed by considerable technical knowledge. It is difficult for me to believe that he is behind the recent cheap shots TAS writers have been taking at you folks. It just doesn't sound like the Bob Harley I know. I have to believe that people like Mr. Green (Greene? Whatever) are flying solo. Mr. Green(e) has always written in a subtext of considerable insecurity, as I read him, what with his incessant flouting of his PhD in Mathematics and his damnable violin playing. Of course, the easiest way to boost one's own stock is to sell somebody else's short (and, of course, constantly remind your audience of your "credentials," as irrelevant as they are). The best writers are always either matter-of-fact and informed (i.e. you an Harley) or humorously self-effacing (Sam, Art, and Mikey). I think you do the right thing in just ignoring these matters and staying out of these little bitch-fights, something I have difficulty doing. Best wishes and keep up the good work. Clifton

Hi, Kana813,

I should visit Greene's website? Why on earth would I want to do that? To learn to spell his name? I'll take your word for it.

I don't think anyone puts Robert Harley in the same bag as some of the lightweights who get published in TAS. We all make mistakes. Hell, both Harley and JA have given space to J. V. Serinus. Fortunately, that's not all either of them has done.

Quote:

For me it is the science that JA brings to the table with "Phile" that makes the difference. It is the same science that goes into the design and build of the gear, to a lesser degree of course, but an important part of 'seeing the whole picture" if that can be done in a review.

I totally agree with you, Jim. I could not have said it better.

S'phile is also Far more accountable, as can be seen from JA's statement on the June Issue Ads. I feel that statement was commendable.

That is why I subscribe to S'phile, and not TAS.

Aloha, Kana813 --

Greene has never been in any of my listening rooms. They sound fine without him. I have read his drivel a few times before. Remember, this is the genius who put his name on that god-awful WaterLily thing with the Liszt and Dvorak a couple years back. Mids and highs were divine. Seriously. Everything below 150Hz was bad enough to set the art of recording engineering back to the stone age. A sound only a PhD in Mathematics could love. I don't have one of those. If this is the best he can do, I don't WANT him in any of my listening rooms. Some things you do for yourself. Sound is one of them. Just don't tell me in print you're a Renaissance Man, and an authority on how I "ought" to hear what I have been hearing wrong for 40 years, and then brag about a recording that sounds like NOTHING I have ever heard in any concert hall on the planet, ever. Then tell me you are infallible because you study Mathmatics and play the violin in your local church orchestra. Not once, but repeatedly. Your credibility will suffer. The written persona is insufferable, and the only recorded evidence I have of the man's competence is worse. If this is the new wave, I'll stay inland, thank you. This digital room equalization crap sucks the life out of 90% of all music and improves 10%. I don't like the math.

Other than that, how's life in paradise? Watch the sharks.
They like Sashimi, too. Welcome to the forum. Clifton

Quote:
I wish Sphile would recognize that in addition to PC audio,
digital room correction is the other wave of the future.

You mean by reviewing products like Z-Systems rdp-1 and Rives Audio PARC 3-Band Parametric Equalizer?

Quote:

Quote:
I wish Sphile would recognize that in addition to PC audio,
digital room correction is the other wave of the future.

You mean by reviewing products like Z-Systems rdp-1 and Rives Audio PARC 3-Band Parametric Equalizer?

The correspondent must also have missed Kal Rubinson's ongoing exploration into this subject in his bimonthly "Music in the Round" column. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Hi, Kane -- the "you" was editorial and a reference to Greene, not Kane. It seems to me that is his persona -- you know, violinist (who apparently isn't good enough to get paid for it), mathematician, CD producer, etc. -- is overblown. I have tried every equalizer that has been made, analog and digital. To my ears, they DO diminish the drama, even though they CAN smooth out the sound. You can't equalize each individual CD, because they are all so different. And I'm damned if I'm going to undo the immediacy of analog DELIBERATELY just to get a smoother response curve on an oscilloscope. Food for thought: I hear mediocre-to-bad bass live all the time. Really. Disney Hall, which was designed to perfection, has a persistent hump in the 100Hz range. From seats all over the place. I can live with it. I'm glad you are enjoying your experiences with digital equalization, but it's not for me. Nice to hear from you, and enjoy another day in paradise. Cheers, Clifton

Quote:
Disney Hall, which was designed to perfection, has a persistent hump in the 100Hz range. From seats all over the place. Cheers, Clifton

Have you ever sat high up on the sides, Clifton? When I attended the Music Critics Association annual meeting in LA last June, I was given a seat way up and behind the soloist, so that I was roughly in line with the back of the orchestra. It was the weirdest experience. The sound was out there somewhere, disembodied, seemingly untouchable. It was as though there was a barrier between me and the orchestra. I could connect neither viscerally nor emotionally with the music. (E-P S's analytical conducting style didn't help matters). In intermission, I moved to a side balcony seat that enabled me to face the orchestra at a 55 or so degree angle. That seat was better if uncomfortable -- the veil lifted -- but the sound was still disappointing.

I do not experience the bass hump you describe in the various places I've sat in Davies Symphony Hall.

jason

Quote:

The TacT gear has been around for some time, but I don't think Sphile has ever reviewed it.

Kal reviewed the 2.0 in our September 2001 issue. It was our Amplification Component of the Year.

Hi, Jason --

No. I couldn't stand that, unless (like your experience) it was a one-time event. I have to have front and center, or I'll stay home. My subscription seat is perfect. I am on the back row of the first orchestra section (I think that puts me on about row 8...I haven't counted), dead center. This puts me eye-high with a second violinist's tweeters. What a babe. I think there is an analogy between nearfield listening in your living room and sitting fairly close at a concert (not TOO close, of course) -- room anomilies tend to get lost and you hear more sound of the direct variety. As you move further and further away, in both situations, the orchestra does, indeed, appear smaller and the room comes more into play. I sat 'way back in the upper balcony when a friend visited (I wanted him to hear the glories of my regular seat), and the sound was vintage AR-3's -- all the action was "between the speakers" and pleasantly homogenized. Many concertgoers (as I am sure you know) deliberately seek out these seats. I have to be closer to the action, where I hear something more akin to Triangle-type sound, or JM Labs, or the Avant Garde Trios -- very brassy, immediate, spread out, and dramatic. When I look at the folks seated behind the orchestra (underneath the organ pipes), I think, "Why even bother?", but I notice no displeasure when I scan their reactions to the concert. I really do think people who own high-end systems (not even the most expensive, just good stuff) listen differently at home and at a concert, than those who listen to background music at home and still enjoy concerts. I think the 2 experiences reinforce each other. I seek out concert seats and venues that sound like my home system, and upgrade the latter on the basis of what I remember of concerts. You suggested you hated the "disembodied" sense you got, and my thesis would be that is because you are fine-tuned at home. I'll wager many of the folks who surrounded you didn't even notice. We are a strange crowd, we who chase after the perfect sound. Jim Svjede (I probably blew that one, but who could ever spell it right?), a local personality who is a jockey on Classical KUSC (and sort of the resident musical authority -- by training, I think he is a Musicologist) and lectures at fund-raisers and occasionally the pre-concert analyses, doesn't even own a music system. Amazing. Cheers, Clifton

Quote:

I read the review. Like Mr.Howard, KR needlessly used an analog preamp between the TacT RCS and his power amps.

One reason was to permit me to use a separate DAC since I found the original RCS DACs not up to snuff. I understand the newer ones are much better but I have not had the oppportunity to try them.

Kal

I thing the Mag leads the industry in talking about digital room correction and related issues. Besides the articles mentioned previously I note additional articles covering the Clarity DEQX both in OEM form in the NHT sat system and in stand alone form. Far from ignoring the subject IMHO. regards, Tony

TacT has split, the European side has morphed into Lyngdorf Audio. Peter Lyngdorf has hired a team to come up with an entirely new room correction algorithm (trade name RoomPerfect).

On the subject of cheap shots from TAS writers at Stereophile, I think readers will find that Stereophile has shown remarkable restraint over the years, and has refrained from tit-for-tat responses.

Listening to yourself playing the violin will certainly do that to you. I have never been able to make much sense out of his reviews, although I do enjoy listening to un-dsp'd Harbeth speakers. I thought the big Dali's that he creamed his jeans over were quite overrated, and the McIntosh models that he liked (not in an unqualified way, but still he liked 'em) sounded horrible. I realized that's two different sensibilities making judgments, but I'm not so sure he does.